Judgment CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. In W.P.No.24518 of 2012, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the sale conducted by the respondent on 17.08.2012 in respect of the petitioner's properties being the Flat Nos.503 (5thFloor and 603 (6th Floor) each measuring 1576 sq.ft. in Block-C of Shivalaya building, Door No.16 (Old No.26), Commander-in-Chief Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 105, together with proportionate undivided share in the land and the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai (1) dated 17.08.2012 in S.A.No.79/2012 and (2) dated 31.08.2012 in I.A. Nos. 396 and 397 of 2012 in S.A. No. 79 of 2012. 2. In W.P.No.24519 of 2012, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the sale conducted by the respondent on 17.08.2012 in respect of the petitioner's property situated at D1, 3rd floor, Sri Kalki Flats, Ceebros Apartments, having a super built up area of 1610 sq.ft. Together with the proportionate undivided share of land bearing Door No.11, Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17 and the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai dated 31.08.2012 in I.A. Nos. 399 and 400 of 2012 in S.A.No.80 of 2012. 3. It is seen from the averments in the writ petitions that the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P. Nos. 8138 and 8139 of 2012, wherein, by interim order dated 27.03.2012, this Court imposed a condition, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-(Rupees forty lakhs only) within a period of four weeks. Admittedly, the petitioner had not complied with the said terms. Hence, the stay petition was dismissed. Thereafter wards, the first respondent Bank conducted an auction, wherein the third respondent had purchased the property. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had once again approached this Court to set aside the order of sale dated 17.08.2012. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, since, consistently the petitioner has been adopting dilatory tactics thereby to thwart the efforts taken by the Bank for recovery of the amount, which is fairly a huge amount. He also referred to the proceedings taken by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to thwart the efforts taken by the Bank for recovering this amount. He also referred to the proceedings taken by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to thwart the efforts taken by the Bank for recovering this amount. Considering the withdrawal of W.P.No.8139 of 2012 by order dated 19.10.2012 on the ground that the prayer had become infructuous, the self-same issue cannot be re-agitated by filing a fresh writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material placed on record. 5. Evidently, as against the order of sale, the petitioner has a statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act. That being the case, we do not fina any exceptional circumstances for this Court to entertain the writ petitions and pass orders on merits. In the circumstances, while dismissing these writ petitions, we observe that it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy as available under the SARFAESI Act as against the sale conducted by the first respondent. If and when any appeal is filed, the said forum may take note of the pendency of the writ petitions before this Court while calculating the limitation alone. In the result, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1, 1, 2, 2, 6 and 6 of 2012 stand closed.